In general, I found your paper to be confusing. I don't know who your intended readers are but perhaps it will make more sense to them. I started out making a list of criticisms but it became too long and unwieldy. Instead, I will have to summarize.

In general, some of the conclusions seem arbitrary, some distinctions don't seem important or relevant to me, and some of the arguments do not seem well-founded or they are just unconvincing. The paper lacks coherence, a clear topic, and a clear conclusion.

• The paper makes a strong distinctions between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.
• The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".
• The paper takes the term "proof of work" too literally and fails to acknowledge its economic basis.
• The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.
• The diagrams are unnecessary.